The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act of 1970 and the Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001 may go down in the record
books as two of the most notorious laws in U.S. History. Both
were passed by Congress in order to address the perceived nationwide
crises of their respective times-- the former in an effort to crack
down on organized crime and the latter in an attempt to protect America
from the threat of terrorism. But are these laws solving our immediate
problems or simply creating new ones?

On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the
Patriot
Act into law. "Today, we take an essential step in defeating
terrorism, while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans,"
he proclaimed. "With my signature, this law will give intelligence
and law enforcement officials important new tools to fight a present
danger."

Signed a month-and-a-half after the World Trade
Center came tumbling down, this bill brought the first real sense of
security back to many Americans since that fateful day in September.
Our president and congressional representatives stared terrorism in
the face and threw down the gauntlet. The signing of this bill said
that they meant business. They were going to do everything in
their power to eliminate the global threat of terrorism-- and they were
going to start right in their own backyard.

Getting tough on terrorism. That is the
image Washington wanted to paint for the rest of America, but is that
really what we have been given?

To start with, the bill was simply a knee-jerk
reaction to a seemingly insurmountable problem. In fact, it rocketed
through both houses of Congress with such breathtaking speed that almost
no one had time to read it before being expected to weigh in with a
"Yea" or a "Nay."

Representative Ron Paul of Texas, one of only
three Republican lawmakers to vote against the legislation, told Insight
Magazine, "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before
the vote-- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of
games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated
bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill
definitely was not available to members before the vote." This
fact alone should be reason enough for the law's immediate repeal.
It's one thing to claim to be taking a zero-tolerance position on terrorism,
but it's another thing altogether to use a bill you haven't even read
to make that claim.

The Patriot Act modifies existing laws, further
expanding the powers of the federal government in areas like surveillance
and information gathering. Essentially, many restrictions preventing
the government from "spying" on U.S. citizens have been removed.
We have become a nation of potential suspects.

It should be pointed out that despite what many
people believe, the Patriot Act does apply to U.S. citizens. The
portions of the bill that apply specifically to non-citizens mainly
have to do with allowing foreigners into the country and granting the
government the power to detain a terrorist "suspect" indefinitely without
having to file formal charges. Citizens, however, are susceptible
to the security provisions in the bill.

Such provisions include "roving" warrants (Section
206). If issued, federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies
could serve a single warrant to any Internet service provider, regardless
of whether a particular ISP was named in the warrant or not. The
feds could gain access to the electronic data of innocent citizens.

Another provision calls for "sneak-and-peek"
warrants. According to Section 213 of the Act, warrants may be
issued allowing law enforcement officers to secretly search a private
residence and indefinitely delay-- if such a delay is needed for "good
cause shown"-- notifying of the property owner of the warrant.

Yet another provision allows the federal government
to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to include
domestic criminal investigations. Section 218 of the Patriot Act
says that in requesting FISA powers, the Attorney General need only
certify that foreign intelligence is a "significant purpose" of an investigation,
and not "the purpose" as was the case before this bill was passed.

The granting of more surveillance powers doesn't
stop there. Financial institutions will also fall under heavier
scrutiny. The Act grants the Secretary of the Treasury "broad
discretion" in imposing any of several special measures on U.S. financial
institutions where international money laundering is suspected.
One of the goals of this is, according to Section 302, "to ensure that
all appropriate elements of the financial services industry are subject
to appropriate requirements to report potential money laundering transactions
to proper authorities." Local bank tellers may be joining the
ranks of federal law enforcement officers.

If anyone actually thought the Patriot Act was
passed as a tool to mainly combat the threat of future foreign terrorist
attacks, they would be sorely mistaken. Perhaps the most disturbing
aspect of this law is how it addresses domestic terrorism.

Section 802 of the Act amends the current definition
of "domestic terrorism" to include activities that "involve acts dangerous
to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State." Clearly, this definition could be construed
to include virtually any "dangerous" crime, be it at the federal, state,
or local level.

In the not-so-distant future, we may see "terrorism"
defined in such a way that just about every right wing militia group
and pro-life organization could be considered a potential terrorist
threat. How would militias be linked to terrorism? Think
of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Pro-life groups? Think
of any maniac that shoots an abortion doctor or blows up a clinic.

Don't think it can't happen. We have seen
this mutation of seemingly harmless legislation before. For example,
the RICO Act, which had originally been drafted as a weapon against
organized crime, has been used to go after the likes of pro-life activists.
If history is any indication, we will see otherwise law-abiding people
suffer under the Patriot Act as well.

More to the point, RICO has a history of total
betrayal to its stated original intent. All we have to do is examine
the record on how it is continually used. The case example of a small
businessman who was accused of antitrust violations stemming from bid
contracts with a local government agency, illustrates the real world
application of how the DOJ operates. The initial charges were stated
as violations of acceptable bidding practices. Simple enough, if the
law was broken, go to court and prove the prosecution's case to a jury.
The defendant would have the opportunity to present evidence and testimony
that might cast doubt upon the governments version of the alleged infraction.
Isn't that the way the legal system is suppose to work?

Under the provisions of RICO, the original federal
felonies considered racketeering activities included murder, intimidation
of witnesses, kidnapping, obstructing justice, counterfeiting, theft
of interstate shipments, white slavery, embezzlement of pension funds,
certain federal drug offenses, bankruptcy fraud, mail fraud, and wire
fraud. "Organized crime (racketeering) is conceptually defined by RICO
as a pattern of racketeering activity committed by an individual or
group either as part of an enterprise or against an enterprise... A
pattern of racketeering activities is the enterprise. Such cases have
led Lynch (1987a 661) to conclude that RICO is best categorized as 'the
crime of being a criminal.' " RICO represented the reintroduction of
in personam criminal forfeitures, which entitles successful
plaintiffs to recover treble damages, cost, and attorneys fees. (see
above source)

In essence RICO uses conspiracy law to trigger
its provisions. So how does this apply to an antitrust charge? Well,
in our example our businessman received immunity from State authorities
that conducted an investigation. The Federal attorneys general amended
their complaint to fall under the RICO provision. RICO allowed the federal
government to lien all bank accounts and seize all company assets, BEFORE
any trial could be conducted. "Since 1984, moneys and properties subject
to seizure effectively become government property at the moment the
initial crime was committed, a policy known as the 'relation
back' doctrine" (Cloud 1987 821 822). Since the business operation
was a legitimate community enterprise, the adverse impact to suppliers,
customers and employees would be obvious. The company would be force
to cease operations and close, well before any trial resolution. This
compelled termination of business would result in effective bankruptcy,
before any day in court. (see same source)

Consider this conclusion: "If virtually any criminal
federation can be a RICO enterprise, and almost any two criminal acts
can be a pattern of racketeering activity, then potential RICO liability
exists whenever more than one person engages in more than one crime...
RICO has swallowed the penal code" (Lynch 1987a 713). (see same source)

The civil penalties from a RICO charge conflicts
with due process, double jeopardy, and due considerations. The guilt
or innocence in our example was never established by jury verdict. The
accused had no effective choice but to plead guilty. Can anyone in good
conscience contend that the 'so called' intentions and promises that
RICO claims to eliminate organized crime is constitutional or does not
endanger regular citizens? When a government culture exists that allows
prosecutors to apply a statute so broadly as the RICO record clearly
demonstrates, no citizen can say he is not a "criminal of the state."
And this all happened during the last month of the Ronald Reagan era.
So much for placing such abusive powers in the hands of even the most
trustworthy administrations.

With the passage of the Patriot Act you have
all the ingredients for even more egregious criminalization of the average
citizen than RICO. It is one thing to confiscate property to force a
conviction, but it is wholly unacceptable to apply draconian measures
to our own citizens, under the hysteria of bringing terrorists to justice.
Just what is America protecting if it is not our constitutional rights?
What are we preserving if not our Liberty from government despotism?
This applies to both foreign and domestic threats. Do you want a society
where the citizen becomes the "enemy of the state" because the state
views her citizens as opponents against government excess? Let us demand
common sense and eternal vigilance from our law makers to secure true
protection for Americans.

Any safeguards promised by our government against
an abuse of power should be taken with a grain of salt. Remember,
this is a government that has been systematically disarming its own
citizens in the name of security, thereby removing the most effective
safeguard against tyranny we could ever hope to have. When this same
government asks for our trust and assures us that it is only doing whats
in our best interests, we should proceed with caution.